What are students actually saying about Opportunities to work with other students (NSS 2018–2025)?

Students’ views on working with peers are mixed overall: experiences skew slightly negative on balance, but there are clear pockets of strong positivity where collaboration is designed-in and easy to access. Tone varies sharply by age and study mode, suggesting logistics and inclusivity are the main levers.

Scope: UK NSS open-text comments for Opportunities to work with other students across academic years 2018–2025.
Volume: 7,331 comments for this topic (100.0% sentiment coverage); ≈1.9% of all comments in the dataset (385,317 total).
Overall mood: 46.3% Positive, 49.3% Negative, 4.4% Neutral; sentiment index +4.4.

What students are saying in this category

The balance of comments is close to neutral overall, indicating a split between strong, well-supported peer work and instances where group activity feels hard to organise or sustain.
Age and mode matter. Younger and full‑time students report notably better experiences (indices +10.2 and +10.4). Mature and part‑time learners skew negative (−9.5 and −12.3), pointing to timetable friction and limited access to peers.
By sex, men report a more positive tone (+8.8) than women (+1.1). Disabled students sit slightly negative (−0.8) versus those not disabled (+5.6).
Tone varies widely by subject cluster. Engineering/technology (+26.8) and design/creative (+22.6) are strongly positive; combined/general studies (−16.3), historical/philosophical/religious (−11.6) and law (−11.2) are most negative among larger groups.

Segment differences (selected)

Segment	Group	Comments	Positive %	Negative %	Sentiment idx
Overall	All students	7,331	46.3	49.3	4.4
Age	Young	5,059	50.5	44.9	10.2
	Mature	2,061	35.5	60.5	-9.5
Mode of study	Full-time	5,209	50.7	44.6	10.4
	Part-time	1,875	33.3	62.7	-12.3
Sex	Female	3,985	43.7	52.3	1.1
	Male	3,121	49.4	45.7	8.8
Disability	Disabled	1,230	41.6	54.3	-0.8
	Not disabled	5,892	47.1	48.4	5.6

Notes:

Two-thirds of comments come from younger students (69.0%); 25.6% are part‑time.
Very small groups (e.g., “Other sex”, n=8; Apprenticeship, n=24) are not shown above and should be interpreted with caution.

Subject tone spread (CAH1, n≥150; unknown/unspecified excluded)

Group	Comments	Sentiment idx
Most positive
(CAH10) Engineering and technology	650	26.8
(CAH25) Design, and creative and performing arts	347	22.6
(CAH02) Subjects allied to medicine	472	10.5
Most negative
(CAH23) Combined and general studies	319	-16.3
(CAH20) Historical, philosophical and religious studies	220	-11.6
(CAH16) Law	222	-11.2

What this suggests:

Where collaboration is built into the course pattern (e.g., studios, labs, projects), tone lifts markedly.
Generalist or essay-heavy areas risk weaker peer interaction unless deliberately scaffolded.

What this means in practice

Make collaboration the default, not an optional extra

Put structured team activity into module timetables (kick‑off, mid‑point, showcase).
Form groups intentionally (mix skills/backgrounds; balance availability), publish roles, and agree working norms up front.

Design for time‑poor and off‑pattern learners

Provide asynchronous routes (discussion boards, shared workspaces, rolling deadlines).
Offer set “collaboration windows” in evenings/online; publish a simple cross‑cohort matching tool to find partners with compatible schedules.

Reduce friction and increase accountability

Create pre‑provisioned digital spaces per group (named channels, folders, templates).
Use light‑touch peer contribution checks at milestones; include a fair‑minded peer‑assessment component to deter free‑riding.

Make inclusion visible

Ensure accessibility (captions, readable docs, hybrid‑ready rooms).
Offer brief teamwork micro‑skills resources (conflict resolution, delegation, decision‑making) and a clear escalation route.

Borrow what works

Ask engineering/creative courses to share patterns (studio hours, crits, project sprints).
Pilot those patterns in lower‑tone areas with clear outcomes and quick feedback loops.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Shows topic tone and volume over time for this specific category, with drill‑downs by school/department, cohort, campus/site and demographics.
Benchmarks like‑for‑like across CAH subject groups and student segments (e.g., age, mode, domicile), enabling targeted actions for mature/part‑time learners.
Produces concise, anonymised briefings for programme teams; exports for boards and quality reviews.

Notes on numbers

Sentiment index (−100 to +100) is sentence‑weighted; it can diverge from the comment‑level positive/negative split shown above.
“Unknown” rows are excluded from commentary; very small groups should be treated cautiously.

Data at a glance (2018–2025)

7,331 comments on this topic (≈1.9% of all comments); 100.0% sentiment coverage.
Overall tone near neutral: 46.3% Positive, 49.3% Negative, 4.4% Neutral; index +4.4.
Biggest gaps: Full‑time vs Part‑time (+22.7 index points), Young vs Mature (+19.7).